Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ex Parte United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 05, 1932

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

26 entries 4 linked 22 unlinked
Show
  1. Benson Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1905
  2. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  3. Mcclellan Vs. Carland US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1910
  4. Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. Vs. James US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1927
    Relied / Followed
  5. an order denying an application for a bench warrant. An opinion of the court below is reported sub nom. United States v. Wingert
    Search
  6. of Joseph v. Wingert
    Search
  7. United States v. Wingert
    Search
  8. being in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. In re Crane, 5 Pet.190, 30 U. S. 193 . In Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  9. by this Court, in cases where original jurisdiction had not been conferred by the Constitution ( See Kentucky v. Dennison
    Search
  10. of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. McClellan v. Carland
    Search
  11. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab
    Search
  12. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Morris
    Search
  13. a denial of the writ, later cases clearly indicate that the rule as thus limited to longer obtains. In McClellan v. Garland
    Search
  14. to file the record in an appeal from a district court, but it was followed broadly in Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James
    Search
  15. Morse v. United
    Search
  16. Fetters v. United
    Search
  17. determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer. Compare McGrain v. Daugherty
    Search
  18. the power to enforce does not inherently beget a discretion permanently to refuse to enforce. In United States v. Thompson
    Search
  19. United States v. Wingert
    Search
  20. of Joseph v. Wingert
    Search
  21. In Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  22. See Kentucky v. Dennison
    Search
  23. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab
    Search
  24. In McClellan v. Garland
    Search
  25. Compare McGrain v. Daugherty
    Search
  26. In United States v. Thompson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial